2017.I

:

BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE ART:

CROSSING BORDERS

ART READINGSThematic Per-reviewed Annual in Art Studies, Volumes III

2017.I Old Art

dited byEmmanuel Moutafov

Ida Toth

, 2018

Content

Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Art: Crossing Borders, Exploring Boundaries ....................................................................11Emmanuel Moutafov, Ida Toth

Words and Images in Early Christian Inscriptions(3rd7th Century) ................................................................................................................39Antonio E. Felle

Das Licht Christi leuchtet allen Form und Funktion von Kreuzen mit Tetragrammen in byzantinischen und postbyzantinischen Handschriften ......................................................................71Andreas Rhoby

Between Princes and Labourers: The Legacy of Hosios Christodoulos and his Successors in the Aegean Sea (11th13th Centuries.) ....................................91Angeliki Katsioti

Essay on a Visual Perspective of Medieval Writing .................................................129Vincent Debiais

The Inner Portal of St Marks Basilica in Venice between East and West ....................................................................................................151Valentina Cantone

Images and Texts across Time: The Three Layers of Mural Paintings in the Church of St George in Sofia ..............................................................................171Elka Bakalova, Tsvetan Vasilev

The Balkans and the Renaissance World ....................................................................193Jelena Erdeljan

Panagia Eleousa in Great Prespa Lake: A symbolic artistic language at the Beginning of the 15th Century ........................209Melina Paissidou

Un cycle hagiographique peu tudi de la peinture extrieure moldave: La vie de saint Pacme le Grand ....................................................................................231Constantin I. Ciobanu

Post-Byzantine Wall Paintings in Euboea: The Monastery of Panagia Peribleptos at Politika ....................................................249Andromachi Katselaki

A Unique 15th Century Donation to Vatopedi: A Pair of Wood-carved Lecterns ....................................................................................265Dimitrios Liakos

Between Loyalty, Memory and the Law: Byzantine and Slavic Dedicatory Church Inscriptions Mentioning Foreign Rulers in the 14th and 15th Centuries .......................................303Anna Adashinskaya

The Illustrated Slavonic Miscellanies of Damascenes Studites Thesauros a New Context for Gospel Illustrations in the Seventeenth Century ....................325Elissaveta Moussakova

Jovan etirevi Grabovan an 18th-Century Itinerant Orthodox Painter. Some Ethnic and Artistic Considerations ...................................................................349Aleksandra Kuekovi

Painters of Western Training Working for Orthodox Patrons Remarks on the Evidence of Late-medieval Transylvania (14th15th Century) ....................................................369Drago Gh. Nstsoiu

The Scene of the Road to Calvary in St Georges Church in Veliko Tarnovo ...................................................................391Maria Kolusheva

- ..................................................411

Religious and National Mythmaking:Conservation and Reconstruction of the Social Memory ........................................427Antonios Tsakalos

List of Contributors .........................................................................................................446

11

:

Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Art:Crossing Borders, Exploring Boundaries

Emmanuel Moutafov1The Institute of Art Studies,

The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

Ida Toth2The Ioannou Centre for Classical and Byzantine Studies,

Wolfson College, Oxford University

Abstract: The authors reflect on methodological and terminological problems related to the critical fields of Byzantine and so-called Post-Byzantine Art in the Balkans. Departing from the traditional, frequently controversial, issues of conti-nuity and identity, this chapter proposes a more effective conceptual framework, which favours the ideas of multiculturality, hybridity, and horizontal exchange. The present essay also addresses the questions of cultural history, and, especially, of Western influences in Orthodox painting after the 15th century, and it urges that art of any period should be measured against the standards of its own time. More generally, it suggests that the reception of Orthodox Christian art in the Balkans ought also to be considered to fall within the purview of scholars of the Western Renaissance, as well as of Ottoman Studies, so as to ensure fruitful academic dia-logue across disciplines.

Key words: classical, Byzantine, Post-Byzantine, Orthodox, Christian, Ottoman, West-ern, Renaissance, Medieval, Balkans, Pre-modern, methodology, terminology, style.

1 Dr Emmanuel Moutafov is Associate Professor in Byzantine and Premodern Art at the Fine Arts Department, and since 2014, Director of the Institute of Art Studies of the Bulgarian Acade-my of Sciences. He works in the fields of Greek Medieval and Post-Medieval Epigraphy, Palaeog-raphy, Iconography, and Painters Manuals.2 Dr Ida Toth is Senior Instructor and Lecturer and Research Fellow at Oxford University, and a regular Visiting Professor at Belgrade University. She is a historian of Byzantine literary culture with research interests in rhetoric, narrative prose, and public display of texts. She is a member of the Executive Committee of the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, and, together with Andreas Rhoby, a coordinator of the International Commission for Byzantine Epigraphy (AIEB).

12

The keen contemporary interest in the Eastern Roman Empire that prompted the German historian Hieronymus Wolf in 1557 to coin the term Byzantine came as a reflection of the intellectual curiosity and existential anxiety of Wolfs own times3. His was by no means the first Western encounter with Byzantine literary heritage, whose impact had been felt for over a century in Humanist and Renaissance Italy, from where it spread across other European cultural centres, including Augsburg a free imperial city in Southern Germany, in which Wolf found patronage for his work on Byzantine historiogra-phy. The inadvertent upshot of his otherwise tormented forays into Medieval Greek literature was Wolfs inspired nomenclature, which would prove as resilient as the realm it purported to des-ignate and, arguably, just as controversial4. Notably, the schol-arly appraisal of Byzantium changed over time with fluctuations in cultural and historical perceptions: in the Age of Enlightenment, when Western intellectuals such as Montesquieu and Voltaire, as well Edward Gibbon, although fascinated with Byzantine political and court culture, raised doubts over the overall merits of the theo-cratic Byzantine Empire, declaring the Medieval Orthodox state fee-ble, corrupt, and decadent5; and, conspicuously, in the nineteenth century, when the development of European Byzantine Studies coincided with the birth of independent Balkan states, whose ide-ologies nationalised Byzantium as a way of detaching themselves from their Ottoman past. These attitudes go a long way towards explaining the reputation of Byzantium as a fraught, but infinitely alluring, academic subject, no less captivating today, but perhaps no longer as divisive6.

The undeniable appeal of the subject has elevated Byzantine Stud-ies to a fully-fledged, and ever growing, scholarly field with its own distinct place alongside Classical, Medieval and Early Modern Studies. Regrettably, this advancement has not yet been extended to

3 Dekker, Rudolf. Egodocuments and History: Autobiographical writing in its social context since the Middle Ages. Verloren Publishing, 2002, 29; Reinsch, Diether Roderich. Hieronymus Wolf as Editor and Translator of Byzantine Texts. In: Przemyslaw Marciniak and Dion C. Smythe (eds.). The Reception of Byzantium in European Culture Since 1500. Farnham, 2016, 43-53. 4 Marciniak, Przemysaw. Ikona dekadencji. Wybrane problemy europejskiej recepcji Bizancjum od XVII do XX wieku. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu lskiego. Katowice, 2009. 5 Christophilopoulou, Aikaterini. 324610. , 1992, 5. 6 Nilsson, Ingela and Paul Stephenson (eds.). Wanted, Byzantium: The Desire for a Lost Empire. Uppsala, 2014.

include the reception of (Post-)Byzantine traditions7, which still lie open to prejudice and misconstruction. A revealing case in point is the notion of the uniformity of Post-Byzantine style, and, more gen-erally, art, which rests on the equally problematic understanding that there existed a single Byzantine style prevailing in the entire Medieval Orthodox 8. In fact, Byzantium as a complex amalgam of Roman identity, Christian ideology, and European her-itage, with the Greek language providing a further identity marker9, requires that a similar concept of dynamic plurality be applied to its visual and material culture. Still, the reception of Byzantine art, from its very beginnings, did little to acknowledge this diversity. The in-terpretation of Byzantine art as a fixed Greek style had carried dis-cernibly unfavourable connotations from early on, in the context of the Italian Cinquecento. It first appeared in Giorgio Vasaris descrip-tion of the art of Cimabue, as a negative exemplum against which to measure the artistic accomplishments of fourteenth-century Floren-tine painting10. Viewed through the prism of such appraisal, the title of the 2002 exhibition and its catalogue, Post-Byzantium: the Greek Renaissance11, presents an incongruous contradiction in terms, going against the grain of the implicit claims that any renaissance of the Byzantine Greek style was both absurd and impossible. But, Vasaris programmatic statement evidently ill-informed on Byzantine art cannot be taken as conclusive in discussions of what constitutes a renaissance movement in art. Setting aside the treacherous ques-tion of terminology, the core issue, that of the revival of interest in Classical Antiquity, was demonstrably more intricate and far more widely considered in the world of fifteenth-century Europe than

7 The field of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine reception studies is still in its infancy, but it is grow-ing ever stronger: Auzpy, Marie-France (ed.). Byzance en Europe. Saint-Denis, 2003; Kolovou, Foteini (ed.). Byzanzrezeption in Europa. Spurensuche ber das Mittelalter und die Renaissance bis in die Gegenwart. Berlin/Boston, 2012; Betancourt, Roland and Maria Taroutina (eds.). Byzan-tium/Modernism: The Byzantine as Method in Modernity. Leiden and Boston, 2015; Marciniak, Przemysaw and Dion C. Smythe (eds.). The Reception of Byzantium.8 Spratt, Emily. Toward a Definition of Post-Byzantine Art: The Angleton Collection at the Princeton University Art Museum. In: Record of the Princeton University Art Museum, 71 (June 2014), double issue 20132014, 2-19. 9 Koder, Johannes. Byzanz rmische Identitt, christliche Ideologie und europische Ausstrahl-ung. In: Dmitry Bumazhnov, Emmanuela Grypeou, Timothy B. Sailors and Alexander Toepel (eds.). Das golden Byzanz und der Orient. Schallaburg, 2012, 27-42.10 Vasari, Giorgio. Lives of the Artists. Trans. George Bull. Vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1965, 50-51.11 Kakavas, George (ed.). Post-Byzantium: The Greek Renaissance. 15th 18th Century Treasures from the Byzantine & Christian Museum, Athens. Athens, 2002.

14

has been sustained in the traditional tenets of Western art history12. One aspect of this broad phenomenon, the contribution of Byzan-tium to the rediscovery of classical scholarship in the West, is now-adays better understood13. Points of contact and mutual influence between Byzantine and Renaissance Art have also been evaluated14. Somewhat less familiar to modern scholarly publics is the taste and the rhetorical vocabulary for viewing and describing ancient monu-ments that Byzantine scholars introduced to Italian Humanists15. As well as cultivating the aesthetic appreciation of ancient architecture and decoration of buildings, this influence set the vogue for fostering the Hellenic and Roman past in the process of renegotiating ones own identity a development that can be as clearly identified in the West as in early Ottoman culture, whose own appropriation of clas-sical (and Byzantine) antiquities represented an attempt to claim the succession and the legacy of the Roman/Byzantine Empire16. Classi-cal culture and classical art therefore remained a backdrop against which medieval and early modern societies constructed their pasts and measured the achievement of their presents. However, this process of creative reimagining did not exclude Byzantium. In the West, for example, Byzantine religious art became part of the in-cipient culture of art collecting17: although much of this is still un-known, some artefacts that survive, provide vivid testimonies to the reception and transmission of works of art well beyond any fixed geographical and historical boundaries. One such example, Bessa-rions Reliquary, a lavish Palaiologan staurotheke bequeathed to the Florentine Scuola della Carita by the famous Byzantine expatriate,

12 Burke, Peter. Hybrid Renaissance. Culture, Language, Architecture. Budapest and New York, 2016. 13 Wilson, Nigel. From Byzantium to Italy: Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance. Baltimore, 1993; Harris, Jonathan. Greek Emigres in the West 14001520. Camberly, 1995.14 Recently by: Lymberopoulou, Angeliki and Rembrandt Duits (eds.). Byzantine Art and Renaissance Europe. London, 2013.15 On the impact of Byzantine scholarship on Quattrocento humanists and their attitudes to-ward architecture, see: Smith, Christine. Architecture in the Culture of Early Humanism: Ethics, Aesthetics and Eloquence, 14001470. Oxford, 1992.16 Ousterhout, Robert. The East, the West, and the Appropriation of the Past in Early Ottoman Architecture. Gesta, 2004, No. 43/2, 165-176; Fowden, Elizabeth. The Parthenon Mosque, King Solomon and the Greek Sages. In: Ottoman Athens: Archeology, topography, history. Athens, forthcoming.17 Duits, Rembrandt. Byzantine Icons in the Medici Collection. In: Angeliki Lymberopoulou and Rembrandt Duits (eds.). Byzantine Art and Renaissance Europe. London, 2013, 157-188.

15

:

Cardinal Bessarion18 (Fig. 1), offers abundant scope for examining the creative processes of cultural mem-ory and social agency in art. More generally, a focus on these pro-cesses stands to greatly enrich our understanding of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine art production, and of its impact on wider European culture19.

Such fluidity has been fully ac-knowledged by modern Byzantine scholarship, which regards Byzan-tium as much more than a uniform polity, making up one empire, one religion, one artistic style and one ethnos20. Rather, it views the Byzan-tine Empire as a political, cultural, and religious Orthodox Christian force field, complex in itself, but also creating polycentric spheres of influence, of which one was the Byzantine Commonwealth the only one, in fact, whose spiritual centre was Constantinople, and which outlived Byzantiums territorial empire21. Misconstruction of this

18 Klein, Holger, Valeria Poletto and Peter Schrei-ner (eds.). La Stauroteca di Bessarione fra Constan-tinopoli e Venezia. Venice, 2017. 19 On cultural memory, see: Assman, Jan. Com-municative and Cultural memory. In: Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nnning (eds.). Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook. Berlin and New York, 2008, 109-118; on art and agency, see: Gell, Alfred. Art and Agency. Oxford, 1998.20 For an inspired discussion of the nature of Byz-antium and its society, see: Cameron, Averil. Byzan-tine Matters. Princeton and Oxford, 2014.21 Dimitri Obolenskys concept of the Byzantine Commonwealth, revised by: Shepard, Jonathan. Byz-antiums Overlapping Circles. In: Elizabeth Jef-

Fig. 1. Gentile Bellini. Cardinal Bessarion and Two Members of the Scuola della Carita in prayer with the Bessarion Reliquary. Photo credit: The National Gallery, London

16

influence as emanating one-directionally, from the centre to the peripheries, is the reason why still, even right up until today, the finest medieval monuments and mural paintings in Serbia, Bulgaria or Macedonia (FYROM) tend to be attributed to metropolitan, i.e. Byzantine painters. By the same token, works of inferior quality or some rather less impressive examples of icon painting are com-monly classified as products of local, i.e. non-Byzantine, painters. Thus, scholars feel free to label unsigned works of non-Greek, i.e. Bulgarian, Serbian, Armenian workshops as belonging to a sub-culture within a high culture emanating from a Byzantine, often Constantinopolitan, epicentre. The Boyana Church offers a vivid case in point. The vast array of secondary literature on this mon-ument22 marks a triumph of Byzantine Studies over nationalism, achieved through debunking the myth of the Boyana painter (Fig. 2) as being of Bulgarian extraction, as well as over the compensato-ry assumption that this monument signified the advent of the Eu-ropean Renaissance. And yet, in a similar vein, stylistic analyses of the iconographic programme of Boyana have created yet another, equally problematic, myth about a highly accomplished, but oth-erwise unknown Constantinopolitan icon painter. Clearly, a more concerted discussion needs to be had regarding the nature of Byz-antine style in art, and whether some aspects of this art, particularly those that are understood in terms of translation and crossover, should be nonetheless defined as exclusively Byzantine; and, more-over, whether artistic quality should be thought of as a privilege of the (Greek-speaking) centre alone.

Throughout the fourteenth century, the Balkans was in the grip of an economic, political, military, and religious crisis. At the end of the century, the entire region was divided among numerous smaller polities, whose weakness made them easy prey for the Ottomans23.

freys (ed.). Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London, 21 16 August 2006. In: Plenary Papers. London, 2006, 15-55; Shepard, Jonathan. The Byzantine Com-monwealth 10001550. In: Michael Angold (ed.). The Cambridge History of Christianity. Cam-bridge, 2006, 1-52. 22 Penkova, Bisserka (ed.). - [Boyanskata tsarkva Mezdu Iztoka i Zapada v izkustvoto na hristianska Evro-pa]. Sofia, 2011 (with the bibliography of the monument).23 Dimitrov, Strashimir, Manchev, Krastju. [Istoria na bal-kanskite narodi]. Vol. 1. Sofia, 1999, 17; Laiou, Angeliki. Byzantium and the Neighbouring Pow-ers: Small State Policies and Complexities. In: Sarah T. Brooks (ed.). Faith and Power (12611557): Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture. New York, 2006, 42 -53.

17

:

Fig. 2. Interior mural decoration of the Boyana church, 13th century, Bulgaria. Photo credit: Ivan Vanev

The Ottoman conquest had major consequences for the political, judicial and cultural life of the Christian populations. While the Greeks of Constantinople retained some religious autonomy and the right to more substantial representation at the Sublime Porte, the arrival of the new political power changed the fate of the Balkan peoples in a more conspicuous way: although some continuity can be discerned in their demographic, administrative and economic development, in the political and to some extent religious sphere, Ottoman rule entailed a break with the Byzantine past. A strong sense of discontinuity can be inferred from the determination with which the Romanian princes in the Wallachian lands claimed the legacy of the Byzantine imperial traditions. Their cultural and ide-ological self-fashioning was especially visible in their continuous military campaigns against the Ottomans, their sponsorship of efforts to recover Byzantine literary heritage, and the rich icono-graphic programme that they left behind of themselves as found-ers and benefactors of major Orthodox churches and monasteries24.

24 Pippidi, Andrei. Tradiia politic bizantin n rile Romne n secolele XVIXVIII. 2nd edi-

18

Elsewhere in the Balkans, however, Christians could not hold gov-erning or even administrative positions (except for vassals in the fif-teenth century), and that, in turn, diminished opportunities for the patronage, and, consequently, for the production, of monumental and secular art. In cities, Muslims already accounted for about forty percent of the population25. The Patriarchate of Tarnovo was downgraded to a Bishopric, and it came under the jurisdiction of Constantinople either in 143826 or immediately after 1453. This in effect amounted to the obliteration the Medieval Bulgarian religious traditions through their merger with a general Orthodox and spe-cifically with Greek culture. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that a considerable level of religious tolerance still existed in the Balkans, arguably more so than in many other parts of contemporary Eu-rope27. In some respects, the Pax Ottomana brought prosperity: the restoration of the Patriarchate of Pe in 1557 inspired and funded a revival of religious art harking back to the traditions of Medieval Serbian manuscript illumination, painting and architecture28. On the other hand, the crisis of the seventeenth century created new conditions for artistic production in the Balkans. Painter workshops gradually retreated to the countryside and remote mountainous re-gions, where they benefitted from communal patronage and from a new class of merchant-donors (Fig. 3) commissioning their services as icon painters and wood carvers. These itinerant craftsmen intro-duced new styles simpler, quicker to execute, adoptive of diverse, also Islamic, influences into seventeenth-century Orthodox art29.

The significance of the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 as a definitive turning point in the history of the Balkans has been overstated in

tion. Bucharest, 2001.25 Todorov, Nikolay. XVXVII . [Po niakoi vapro-si na balkanskia grad prez XVXVII vek]. Historical Review 2, Sofia, 1965, 134.26 The terminus is provided by the signature of Ignatius of Tarnovo at the Council of Florence . See Snegarov, Ivan. [Kratka istoria na balgarskata tsarkva]. Vol. 2. Sofia, 1946, 211.27 Bergstsser, Georg. Grundzge des islamischen Rechts. BerlinLeipzig, 1935, 43.28 See, contributions by Zoran Raki, Svetlana Peji, Miljana Mati, Mila Gaji, Irena padijer, Branislav Todi and Ljiljana evo in Section VI: Christian Theocratic Realm within an Islamic Em-pire: A Great Post-Byzantine Renewal. In: Danica Popovi and Dragan Vojvodi (eds.). Byzantine Heritage and Serbian Art. Vol. II. Belgrade, 2016, 497-579.29 Tsampouras, Theocharis. The contribution of the Mount Grammos painters to the formation of a common artistic language in the seventeenth-century Balkans. Maximilian Hartmuth (ed.) with assistance of Aye Dilsiz and Alyson Wharton. Christian art under Muslim rule: proceedings of a workshop held in Istanbul on May 11/12. 2012. Leiden, 2016, 1-17.

19

:

Fig. 3. Donor composition, d. 1645: the merchant Panos Arseniou and the former treasurer of the Archbishopric of Pogoniani, Panos Papademetriou. Painted by Demetrius from Grammosta and Ioannes Skoutares. Church of the Holy Apostles, Molyvdoskepastos, Epirus, Greece. Photo credit: Theocharis Tsampouras

20

scholarly literature. This momentous event does not seem to have been universally felt across the entire region, and the emphasis on the date itself runs the danger of misrepresenting a true historical process. The Bulgarian state had disappeared from the political map of Europe sixty years earlier; Serbia capitulated in 1459; Morea in 1460; and Bosnia in 1464. The mountainous regions of modern-day Montenegro and Albania held out much longer, until the beginning of the 16th century. The Ottoman conquest of the Balkans took al-most a century to complete, while the decline of the weak states that were subsequently conquered had made itself felt a whole cen-tury earlier. The loss of the political centre of Orthodoxy was defi-nitely important, but it was not perceived as quite so momentous by contemporaries at least not to the extent that the nineteenth- and twentieth-century national historiographies represent. More recently, scholars of the early modern Balkans have started to ex-plore other aspects of this process, such as, for example, a conspic-uous lack of hostility in attitudes towards the Turks in the works of Christian authors in the aftermath of the conquest30. The notion that these texts ought to have resonated with a nationalist anti-Ot-toman ideology is by now outdated and anachronistic. On the con-trary, it is being accepted that these sources provide evidence of a positive stance towards the reigning sultans31. In the early centuries of Ottoman rule, the sultans were viewed as the natural successors of Byzantine emperors. Even the Orthodox Church found a way of commemorating and praying for the non-Christian, but nonetheless legitimate, Ottoman emperors. A sense of adjustment to the new re-gime emerges in many genres of Slavonic literature, including brief chronicles, histories and hagiographies32. Chronographers, for ex-ample, most naturally placed the succession lines of Ottoman lords after the emperors of Constantinople, and would more often than not call them emperors rather than sultans33. The attitude towards the Ottomans in the Serbian genealogies is at the very least com-

30 Rakova, Snezhana. , , XV . [Bulgaria, Serbia, Vizantia istoricheski zapisi na Balkanite]. In: Vassil Gyuzelev, An-isava Miltenova and Radoslava Stankova (eds.). Bulgaria and Serbia in the Context of Byzantine Civilization. Sofia, 2003, 145-163.31 Danchev, Georgi. [Stranici ot istoriata na Tarnovskata knizhovna shkola]. Sofia, 1983, 251.32 Rakova. , , , 158.33 Stojanovi, Ljubomir. Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi. Novi Sad, 1927, No. 858.

21

:

pliant34: when describing riots in the Balkans, these sources speak about disasters caused by squabbling among the Christians, rather than about their grievances against the conquerors. Thus the de-scription of Ottoman history, of the events that shook the Balkans in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, is done in a way that allows the Ottomans to be woven into the fabric of the earlier history of the peninsula and to act as the successive rulers of these lands35.

Much as with Byzantine, the concept of Post-Byzantine in art presents problems for modern publics and scholars alike, not least because of the difficulties posed by the vexed questions of identity and continuity36. The term itself we owe to the historian and states-man Nicolae Iorga and those who followed in his footsteps37. His paradigmatic account of the permanence and survival of Byzantine forms is still loosely employed in art history to describe a period the centuries of art production that followed the fall of the Byz-antine capitaland to define the style of Orthodox art produced after 1453. Iorgas seminal work has undoubtedly contributed to the progress of Post-Byzantine scholarship by reinvigorating ex-isting fields of research, including those of religious iconography and painting, but it has done little by way of proposing any more precise chronology or underscoring shifts in political situations and orientations of its historical actors38. In the current state of research, many questions remain open with perhaps the following two desid-erata being the most pressing: a reassessment of the interpretations of Post-Byzantine art as inherently derivative and unoriginal, and a study of parallel, diverse, and mutually influential artistic trends that developed in different environments across the Orthodox com-munities in the Balkans and beyond. Religion is a central issue a high proportion of surviving Post-Byzantine art happens to be reli-gious. This has to do with how religion was practiced, with Ortho-

34 Stojanovi. Stari srpski, No 858.35 Stojanovi. Stari srpski, No 858.36 Eastmond, Anthony. The Limits of Byzantine Art. In: Liz James (ed.). A Companion to Byzan-tium. Chichester, 2010, 313-22.37 Iorga, Nikolae. Byzance aprs Byzance. Bucharest: Institut dtudes byzantines, 1981. Also see Lowell, Clucas (ed.). The Byzantine Legacy in Eastern Europe. Boulder: East European Mon-ographs, distributed by Columbia University Press, 1988; Kitromilides, Paschalis. The Byzantine Legacy in Early Modern Political Thought. In: Anthony Kaldellis and Niketas Siniossoglou (eds.). The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium. Cambridge, 2017, 653-68.38 Spratt. Toward a Definition, 17.

22

doxy, being the badge of identi-ty within the Ottoman Empire, spilling over into the patronage and commissioning of art. The term that provides some preci-sion in defining the artistic pro-duction that catered for the re-ligious needs of the Christians under the Sultans between the fifteenth and the nineteenth century is Orthodox Christian Art of the Ottoman period39. The designation Post-Byzantine will certainly continue to have substantial traction, but, rather than being understood literally, it can be used to indicate pro-cesses of change taking place in the Ottoman world, the polyva-lent nature of culture and art, and the hybridity that we see as built into the very fabric of the Post-Byzantine world.

Conditions for making Or-thodox art after the end of the

fifteenth century differed from region to region within the Otto-man Empire. To take the example of Constantinopolitan artisans: some of them probably emigrated to Crete long before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, where they found suitable conditions for perpetuating Byzantine Orthodox traditions in religious painting. Their influence spread over the Ionian islands, and further afield, reaching Venice and Venetian workshops, with which these artists maintained regular contact. They painted icons la Greca on gold background, elongating the proportions of the figures, depicting garments and architectural landscapes that abounded in fine detail. Such icons were in demand in Western European markets until well into the late sixteenth century (Fig. 4). For the rest of the Balkans,

39 Moutafov, mmanuel. 18 .? . [Kade e Vizantia v kraya na 18 vek?] Art Studies Quarterly, 2005, No. 4, 3-8.

Fig. 4. Enthroned Virgin with Child and Donors, 13th century, Tuscan-Byzantine workshop, Museum of the Basilica ofSt Nicholas, Bari, Italy. Photo credit: Emmanuel Moutafov

23

:

however, opportunities to communicate directly with Crete, and thereby, indirectly, with Renaissance and Post-Renaissance Italy, were sparse. In other words, most Balkan lands were neither con-sumers nor producers of the kind of Byzantine-style art that was favoured in the West after the fifteenth century.

On the other hand, some Pre-Modern Orthodox icon painting reveals the artists attention to perspective drawing techniques, rendering their artwork much more like a window opening onto a realistic world. Indeed, icons from Crete (Fig. 5) and the Ionian islands often resemble Western images, with their space organised according to the principles of geometric foreshortening. Not until the eighteenth century, however, was this practise methodically applied. When it eventually prevailed, the general appearance changed to the extent that they lost the features that allowed them to be easily recognisa-ble as products of Byzantine or Post-Byzantine art40.

The most common element in Medieval/Byzantine and Orthodox/Post-Byzantine art in the Ottoman period is its shared iconographic tradition. This tradition adhered to the conventions of painting, not from life, but integrating distinct notions of space and time into a single plane, with no intention of creating any sense of depth. Look-ing through the lenses of the Western Post-Renaissance aesthetics, this style can be defined as formulaic, flat, and lacking perspec-tive41. Along similar lines, it is usually assumed that Western artistic influence was slow to reach the Greek-speaking territories under Venetian control. Such a notion leads to judging Post-Byzantine art as retrograde, as well as to confusing the general patterns of influ-ence, which were by no means one-directional or fixed. The com-plex socio-political circumstances of the Greek-speaking lands that were successively under Byzantine, (Venetian), and Ottoman rule make it impossible to characterise Post-Byzantine art produced in these territories according to a single style. Even more complicated is the picture within those parts of the Ottoman Empire where the dominant Slavic-speaking population maintained contacts with the Habsburg Monarchy and Russia. A more critical examination of the question of foreign influences and of their reception in Post-Byzan-

40 Spratt. Toward a Definition, 14.41 These features are typical of most Orthodox painting made outside Crete and Corfu: Gratziou. , 191.

24

Fig. 5. Martyrdom of Sts Kyrikos and Julitta, 17th century, Cretan provenance, the Icon Collection of the Bachkovo Monastery, Bulgaria. Photo credit: Ivan Vanev

25

:

tine art is acutely needed42. Moreover, any such discussions need to acknowledge the bi-lateral and reciprocal nature of cross-cultural contacts, and also to consider how networks, connections, and the interacting systems of trade and diplomacy effected artistic chang-es. Rare are instances that may point to any concerted efforts on the part of one culture to influence another, such as, perhaps, in the case of the presumed impact of Western art. It is well known that trans-lations of Leonardo da Vincis Treatise on Painting were undertaken by Greek Orthodox painters in the eighteenth century and also, a century later, by their disciples of Slavic origin. Still, the technique of oil painting and the principles of perspective, which had been de-veloped during the Italian Renaissance, began to be applied in the Balkans under the influence of the first professional schools of art in the nineteenth century. Up until then, only sporadic Western-style elements can be identified in Orthodox painting (Fig. 6), none of which have been sufficiently studied and understood by modern scholars of Post-Byzantine art.

Elsewhere in the Balkans, until well into the late eighteenth cen-tury, some artists, like Constantine from Byzantium/Istanbul (Fig. 7), deemed themselves direct heirs of Byzantine traditions with-out being aware that they were establishing a post-tradition of any kind. In the same vein, theoreticians of Orthodox art like Dionysios of Phourna believed that the end of true painting came with the end of the Palaiologan period or the death of the legendary Manuel Panselinos43, and accordingly, urged that these authorities should be followed as models of exemplary style in Orthodox painting. Rely-ing on the religious term Christian Orthodox when discussing a type of art that is not secular, instead of using the problematic political and ideological designation such as Post-Byzantine, would have the additional benefit of preventing generalising assertions and possi-ble misunderstandings in dialogues with experts from other fields.

To date, the term Post-Byzantine and its ramifications for the his-tory of art have been most comprehensively discussed by Olga

42 Spratt. Toward a Definition, 15. On the problematic nature of assessing influence in the his-tory of art, see Baxandall, Michael. Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures. New Haven, 1985, 58-62.43 Moutafov, mmanuel. [Manuel Panselinos i krayat na istinskata zhivopis]. In: Snezha Rakova and Liliyana Symeonova (eds.). Medieval Balkans: Politics, Religion, Culture. Sofia, 1999, 211-216.

26

Fig. 6. Two scenes from the life of St John the Baptist (Altar screen: The Cycle of Feast), 1869, the Church of Sts Theodore Teron and Theodore Stratelates, Kouklen village, Bulgaria. Photo credit: Ivan Vanev

Gratziou, who notes that this definition has been used principal-ly by Greek art historians, but does not acknowledge that it was also en vogue in other Balkan countries until well into the 1990s44. Emily Spratt has also made important contributions to this discus-sion45. Gratziou has rightly pointed out a conceptual problem that

44 On the problematic usage of the term, see Gratziou, Olga. : . [Post-Byzantine Art: Chronologi-cal Designation or Conceptual Category?]. In: Tonia Kiousopoulou (ed.). 1453: [The Fall of Constantinople and the Transition from the Medieval to the Modern Period]. Her-aklion, 2005, 183-96; uri, Slobodan. The Absence of Byzantium The Role of a Name. In: Nea Estia 82, 2008, No. 164; and Safran, Linda. Byzantine Art in Post-Byzantine South Italy. In: Common Knowledge 18, 2012, No. 3, 485-504. 45 Spratt. Toward a Definition, and eadem. The Allegory of the Holy Communion: An Investi-gation of a Post-Byzantine Icon Type that Developed on the Ionian Islands during the Period of the Venetian Hegemony. (MSt thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, Fall 2007). Spratt presented further discussions of the concept in two conference papers in Michigan (2010) and

27

:

occurs as a result of confining Post-Byzantine art to a strictly limit-ed period46. It therefore seems useful to identify the chronological framework for which this term is most relevant, as well as stressing that twentieth-century and contemporary Balkan historians, literary scholars, and linguists have not dealt with the issue of chronology in any conclusive way. In historic terms, the birth of the Balkan nation-al states and their ideologies in the 19th century was a period when Orthodox Christian communities in the region were renegotiating their relationships with the Byzantine legacy, very much based on the perceived importance of Byzantium for their respective national narratives47. The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and the final establishment of the modern Balkan states also coincided with the development of European Byzantine Studies, and the upsurge of academic focus on the historical reality of Byzantium. But, that also brought up certain stigmatising and discriminatory rhetoric: until recently, Byzantine legacy in the Balkans continued to be viewed as a modern construct, which only served contemporary political and ideological agendas48. However, history written from within the Or-thodox tradition has seen a change: the modern Balkan countries and their academias have gradually repositioned both Byzantium and their own past in their proper historical contexts, and the suc-cess of these processes bodes well for the future of Post-Byzantine scholarship49.

***

Budapest (2013). 46 Gratziou. , 196.47 Moutafov, Emmanuel. Of History in Art and of Picturesque in History. King Samuel, his Troops and Balkan Nationalism. In: Emmanuel Moutafov (ed.). The Age of King Samuel as Treat-ed by Bulgarian Artists. Sofia, 2014, 5-25.48 Angelov, Dimiter. Byzantinism: The Real and the Imaginary Influence of a Medieval Civili-zation on the Modern Balkans. In: Dimitris Keridis, Elias Bursac, and Nicholas Yatromanolakis (eds.). New Approaches to Balkan Studies. Dulles, VA, 2003, 3-21; Ricks, David and Paul Magdal-ino (eds.). Byzantium and the Modern Greek Identity. Aldershot and Brookfield, 1998.49 Gyuzelev, Vassil and Kiril Petkov (eds.). State and Church: Studies in Medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium. Sofia, 2011; Popovi, Danica and Dragan Vojvodi (eds.). Byzantine Heritage and Serbian Art. Vol. IIII. Belgrade 2016; Bakalova, Elka, Margaret Dimitrova et al. (eds.). Medieval Bulgarian Art and Letters in a Byzantine Context. Sofia, 2017; Discovering Byzantium in Istan-bul: Scholars, Institutions, and Challenges (18001955) 16 18 November 2017, Pera Museum: http://en.iae.org.tr//Images/pdf/etkinlikler/sempozyum/istanbuldabizansikesfetmek.pdf (the Symposium booklet accessed 6 December 2017).

28

Serbia gained independence in 1815 with the establishment of the autonomous Paalk of Belgrade. According to the majority of Greek researchers, the so-called Post-Byzantine period in art ends with the Greek Wars for Independence in 183050, but it is perhaps easy to intuit why the art of post-secession Greece is not referred to as Post-Ottoman but Modern Greek. The main part of Bulgaria gained independence much later, in 1878. Other large and impor-tant regions in the Balkans, like Thrace and Macedonia, remained under Ottoman rule at least until 1912. The local traditions of Or-thodox art during the centuries of Ottoman domination continued to be promulgated by the icon workshops of Edirne, Athos, Melnik, Sozopol, Debar, Kepesovo and Galatista. Icons and frescoes, which conformed to the aesthetics of the previous centuries continued to be painted in small villages of the newly independent territories of the Balkan countries. Popular tastes remained the same, despite the political and economic changes. Therefore, in this particular regard, the alignment of political history with the history of religious art is neither methodologically nor factually justified. That is why we have to allow for a more flexible periodization acknowledging that the history of Christian Orthodox art in the Ottoman period con-tinues until the beginning of the twentieth century, or, provisional-ly, until the 1920s. This chronology covers the hiatus of 18301920 that has remained neglected by art historians; after all, the majority of surviving Christian artefacts in the Balkan Peninsula date back precisely to this era. Questionable quality, vast output, multidirec-tional influences, and innovations that do not conform to a single tradition, should not be considered as an obstacle to scholarship. Such phenomena hold the key to understanding earlier iconogra-phy and, most importantly, the multiple identities of the Balkan nations, their mentalities, and their Oriental-style, two-dimension-alised, visual culture, formed during the complicated but in many ways seminal nineteenth century.

Postscript

This essay has been written in two stages: the fully-drafted ideas of one author were in response read, largely against the grain, by the other. This

50 Chadzidakis, Manolis. (14501830). . , 1987, 8.

29

:

approach has proved challenging and stimulating in equal measure: it has provided both contributors abundant scope for crossing borders and exploring boundaries in their respective research fields while inviting a vigorous reassessment of the current state of scholarship as a whole. The preparation of the present volume posed similar demands with still more gratifying results. It has highlighted many intersections and communali-ties across a wide range of scholarly contributions, and has, auspiciously, showed that interdisciplinary collaborations hold a great promise for the future of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine scholarship.

Fig. 7. Constantine from Byzantium (Istanbul), All Saints, 1777, the National Archaeological Institute and Museum, Sofia. Photo credit: Ivan Vanev

30

Bibliography

Angelov, Dimiter. Byzantinism: The Real and the Imaginary Influence of a Medieval Civilization on the Modern Bal-kans. In: Dimitris Keridis, Elias Bursac, and Nicholas Yatro-manolakis (eds.). New Approaches to Balkan Studies. Dulles, VA, 2003, 3-21. Assman, Jan, Communicative and Cultural memory. In: Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nnning (eds.). Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook. Berlin and New York, 2008, 109-118.Auzpy, Marie-France (ed.). Byzance en Europe. Saint-Denis, 2003.Bakalova, Elka, Margaret Dimitrova et al. (eds.). Medieval Bul-garian Art and Letters in a Byzantine Context. Sofia, 2017.Bergstsser, Georg. Grundzge des islamischen Rechts. Ber-linLeipzig, 1935.Baxandall, Michael. Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985, 58-62.Betancourt, Roland and Maria Taroutina (eds.). Byzantium/Modernism: The Byzantine as Method in Modernity. Leiden and Boston, 2015. Burke, Peter. Hybrid Renaissance. Culture, Language, Archi-tecture. Budapest and New York, 2016.Cameron, Averil. Byzantine Matters. Princeton and Oxford, 2014.Chadzidakis, Manolis. (14501830). . , 1987.Christophilopoulou, Aikaterini. 324610. , 1992.uri, Slobodan. The Absence of Byzantium The Role of a Name. In: Nea Estia 82, No. 164 (Sept. 2008).Danchev, Georgi. [Stranici ot istoriata na Tarnovskata knizhovna shkola]. Sofia, 1983, 245-256.Dekker, Rudolf. Egodocuments and History: Autobiographi-cal writing in its social context since the Middle Ages. Verlor-

31

:

en Publishing, 2002.Dimitrov, Strashimir, Krastju Manchev. - [Istoria na balkanskite narodi]. Vol. 1. Sofia, 1999.Duits, Rembrandt. Byzantine Icons in the Medici Collection. In: Angeliki Lymberopoulou and Rembrandt Duits (eds.). Byzantine Art and Renaissance Europe. London, 2013, 157-88.Eastmond, Anthony. The Limits of Byzantine Art. In: Liz James (ed.). A Companion to Byzantium. Chichester, 2010, 313-22.Fowden, Elizabeth. The Parthenon Mosque, King Solomon and the Greek Sages. In: Ottoman Athens: Archeology, topog-raphy, history. Athens, forthcoming.Harris, Jonathan. Greek Emigres in the West 14001520. Cam-berly, 1995.Iorga, Nikolae. Byzance aprs Byzance. Bucharest: Institut dtudes byzantines, 1981.Gell, Alfred. Art and Agency. Oxford, 1998.Gratziou, Olga. : . In: 1453: [The Fall of Constantinople and the Transition from the Medieval to the Modern Period], ed. Tonia Kiousopoulou (Heraklion: [Crete University Press], 2005), 183-96.Gyuzelev, Vassil and Kiril Petkov (eds.). State and Church: Stud-ies in Medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium. Sofia, 2011.Kakavas, George (ed.). Post-Byzantium: The Greek Renais-sance. 15th 18th Century Treasures from the Byzantine & Christian Museum, Athens. Athens, 2002.Kitromilides, Paschalis. The Byzantine Legacy in Early Mod-ern Political Thought. In: Anthony Kaldellis and Niketas Sini-ossoglou (eds.) The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzan-tium. Cambridge, 2017, 653-68.Klein, Holger, Valeria Poletto and Peter Schreiner (eds.). La Stauroteca di Bessarione fra Constantinopoli e Venezia. Venice, 2017.Koder, Johannes. Byzanz rmische Identitt, christliche Ide-ologie und europische Ausstrahlung. In: Dmitry Bumazh-nov, Emmanuela Grypeou, Timothy B. Sailors and Alexander

32

Toepel (eds.). Das golden Byzanz und der Orent. Schalla-burg, 2012, 27-42.Kolovou, Foteini (ed.). Byzanzrezeption in Europa. Spuren-suche ber das Mittelalter und die Renaissance bis in die Gegenwart. Berlin/Boston, 2012.Laiou, Angeliki. Byzantium and the neighbouring powers: small state policies and complexities. In: Sarah T. Brooks (ed.). Faith and Power (12611557): perspectives on late Byzantine art and culture. New York, 2006, 42 -53.Lowell, Clucas (ed.). The Byzantine Legacy in Eastern Europe. Boulder: East European Monographs, distributed by Colum-bia University Press, 1988.Lymberopoulou, Angeliki and Rembrandt Duits (eds.). Byzan-tine Art and Renaissance Europe. London, 2013.Marciniak, Przemysaw. Ikona dekadencji. Wybrane proble-my europejskiej recepcji Bizancjum od XVII do XX wieku. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu lskiego. Katowice, 2009.Marciniak, Przemysaw and Dion C. Smythe (eds.). The Re-ception of Byzantium in European Culture Since 1500. Farn-ham, 2016.Moutafov, mmanuel. [Manuel Panselinos i krayat na ist-inskata zhivopis]. In: Snezha Rakova and Liliyana Symeono-va (eds.). Medieval Balkans: Politics, Religion, Culture. Sofia, 1999, 211-216.Moutafov, Emmanuel. Of History in Art and of Picturesque in History. King Samuel, his Troops and Balkan Nationalism. In: Emmanuel Moutafov (ed.). The Age of King Samuel as Treated by Bulgarian Artists. Sofia, 2014, 5-25.Moutafov, mmanuel. 18 .? . [Kade e Vizantia v kraya na 18 vek?] Art Studies Quarterly, 2015, No. 4, 3-8.Nilsson, Ingela and Paul Stephenson (eds.). Wanted, Byzan-tium: The Desire for a Lost Empire. Uppsala, 2014.Ousterhout, Robert. The East, the West, and the Appropriation of the Past in Early Ottoman Architecture. Gesta, 2004, No. 43/2, 165-76.Penkova, Bisserka (ed.). [Boyanskata tsarkva Mezdu Iztoka i Zapada v izkustvoto na hristianska Evropa]. Sofia, 2011.

33

:

Popovi, Danica and Dragan Vojvodi (eds.). Byzantine Herit-age and Serbian Art. Vol. IIII. Belgrade, 2016.Pippidi, Andrei. Tradiia politic bizantin n rile Romne n secolele XVIXVIII. 2nd edition. Bucharest, 2001.Rakova, Snezhana. , , XV . [Bulgaria, Ser-bia, Vizantia istoricheski zapisi na Balkanite]. In: Vassil Gyuzelev, Anisava Miltenova and Radoslava Stankova (eds.). Bulgaria and Serbia in the Context of Byzantine Civilization. Sofia, 2003, 145-163.Reinsch, Diether Roderich. Hieronymus Wolf as Editor and Translator of Byzantine Texts. In: Przemysaw Marciniak and Dion C. Smythe (eds.). The Reception of Byzantium in Euro-pean Culture Since 1500. Farnham, 2016, 43-53.Safran, Linda. Byzantine Art in Post-Byzantine South Italy. In: Common Knowledge 18, No. 3 (Fall 2012), 485-504.Shepard, Jonathan. Byzantiums Overlapping Circles. In: Eliz-abeth Jeffreys (ed.). Proceedings of the 21st International Con-gress of Byzantine Studies, London, 21 16 August 2006. In: Plenary Papers. London, 2006, 15-55.Shepard, Jonathan. The Byzantine Commonwealth 10001550. In: Michael Angold (ed.). The Cambridge History of Christi-anity. Cambridge, 2006, 1-52.Smith, Christine. Architecture in the Culture of Early Human-ism: Ethics, Aesthetics and Eloquence, 14001470. Oxford, 1992.Snegarov, Ivan. [Kratka istoria na balgarskata tsarkva]. Vol. 2. Sofia, 1946.Spratt, Emily I. The Allegory of the Holy Communion: An In-vestigation of a Post-Byzantine Icon Type that Developed on the Ionian Islands during the Period of the Venetian Hegem-ony (University of California, Los Angeles, Fall 2007), unpub-lished PhD thesis.Spratt, Emily I. Toward a Definition of Post-Byzantine Art: The Angleton Collection at the Princeton University Art Mu-seum. In: Record of the Princeton University Art Museum, 71 (June 2014), double issue 20132014, 2-19.Stojanovi, Ljubomir. Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi. Novi Sad, 1927.Tsampouras, Theocharis. The contribution of the Mount Gram-mos painters to the formation of a common artistic language

34

in the seventeenth-century Balkans. Maximilian Hartmuth (ed.) with assistance of Aye Dilsiz and Alyson Wharton. Christian art under Muslim rule: proceedings of a workshop held in Istanbul on May 11/12. 2012. Leiden, 2016, 1-17.Todorov, Nilokay. XVXVII . [Po niakoi vaprosi na balkanskia grad prez XVXVII vek]. Historical Review 2, Sofia, 1965, 132-141.Vasari, Giorgio, Lives of the Artists, trans. George Bull. Vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1965.Wilson, Nigel. From Byzantium to Italy: Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance. Baltimore, 1993.

35

:

: ,

- , - .. . -, -. XVXIX . , , , . 1453 . ; - , , . XV . , Christian Orthodox Art of the Ottoman period, , -. .. , , - .

. E. - . . , , - , .

- , -. - , ,

36

- .

446

List of Contributors

Andreas Rhoby, Ph.D, Associate Professor,University of Vienna (Austria) andreas.rhoby@oeaw.ac.at

Andromachi Katselaki, Ph.D, Ministry of Culture and Sports (Greece)archanes1315@yahoo.gr

Angeliki Katsioti, Ph.D, Ephorate of Antiquities of the Dodecanese, Head of the Department of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Sites, Monuments, Research and Museums (Greece)gelikatsioti@gmail.com

Antonio Enrico Felle, Ph.D, Professor,University Aldo Moro, Bari (Italy)ae.felle@gmail.com

Aleksandra Kuekovi, Ph.D, Associate Professor, University of Arts, Belgrade (Serbia)akucekovic@gmail.com

Anna Adashinskaya, Ph.D Student, Department of Medieval Studies of Central EuropeanUniversity in Budapest (Hungary)adashik@gmail.com

Antonis Tsakalos, Ph.D, Curator, Byzantine and Christian Museum, Athens (Greece)antonistsakalos@gmail.com

Constantin I. Ciobanu, Dsc., Institute of Art History G. Oprescu, Bucharest (Romania)constantini_ciobanu@yahoo.com

Dimitrios Liakos, Ph.D, Ephorate of Antiquities of Chalkidiki and Mt. Athos, Ministry of Culture and Sports (Greece) liakos712003@yahoo.gr

Drago Gh. Nstsoiu, Ph.D Student, Medieval Studies at the Central European University in Budapest (Hungary)dragos_nastasoiu@yahoo.com

447. .

Elka Bakalova, Corresponding Member of the BAS, Institute of Art Studies, Sofia (Bulgaria)elkabakalova@gmail.com

Elissaveta Moussakova, Ph.D, Professor, Institute of Art Studies, Sofia (Bulgaria)emoussakova@gmail.com

Emmanuel Moutafov, Ph.D, Associate Professor, Institute of Art Studies, Sofia (Bulgaria)moutafov1@gmail.com

Ida Toth, Ph.D, Senior Lecturer,Oxford University (United Kingdom)ida.toth@history.ox.ac.uk

Jelena Erdeljan, Ph.D, Associate Professor, University of Belgrade (Serbia) jerdelja@f.bg.ac.rs

Maria Kolousheva, Ph.D, Assistant Professor, Institute of Art Studies, Sofia (Bulgaria)m.kolusheva@gmail.com

Melina Paissidou, Ph.D, Associate Professor, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece),mpaisidou@hist.auth.gr

Tsvetan Vasilev, Ph.D, Assistant Professor, Sofia University (Bulgaria) cvetanv@gmail.com

Valentina Cantone, Ph.D, Adjunct Professor, University of Padua, Department of Cultural Heritage (Italy)valentina.cantone@unipd.it

Vladimir Dimitrov, Ph.D, Assistant Professor, New Bulgarian University, Sofia (Bulgaria)vladimirdim@gmail.com

Vincent Debiais, Ph.D, full researcher, Centre national de la recherche scientifique (France),Centre dtudes suprieures de civilisation mdivale, University of Poitiers (France)vincent.debiais@univ-poitiers.fr

:

BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE ART: CROSSING BORDERS

, Institute of Art Studies, BAS

()

Edited byEmmanuel MoutafovIda Toth (United Kingdom)

2017 Art Readings 2017

( ) ( )

ISBN 978-954-8594-70-7 ISSN 1313-2342

Copy-editorTereza Bacheva

Translation Milena LilovaSvetlana Lazarova

ProofreadersAndrew Small (University of Oxford)Hugh Jeffrey (University of Oxford)

Content ManagementLyubomir MarinchevskiMaya Lacheva

PressDirect Services

ISBN 978-954-8594-70-7ISSN 1313-2342